[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:14:59PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:

>> 	This need seems to be overstated.  Beyond what is necessary
>> 	to determine whether the party involved is indeed the
>> 	legitimate holder of the resource in question, what need can
>> 	the RIPE NCC have for the information mentioned?

>Indeed. The NCC needs to know who is the holder to keep the database up
>to date and to provide services. The terms and conditions are not going
>to be enforced by the NCC, so why would they need them?

+1 

The T&C of the original assignment are not relevant to the provision of
services by the NCC and may, after all the years, not even be available
anymore. Thus, the requirement is unneccessary and onerous.


>>> 3. Due diligence checks will be required to verify the legitimacy of
>>> Legacy Resource Holders. If the correct documentation cannot be
>>> provided, the RIPE NCC will be unable to enter into a contractual
>>> relationship with the Legacy Resource Holder.

[...]

>checks are in place. That should be the upper limit of the due
>diligence. I don't want to define in policy how the NCC should handle
>this though.

+1

I'm also in favour of setting limits on how much verification the NCC
can require (and to have some kind of oversight by the membership)
My nightmare scenario here is requiring legal proof of the entire chain
of M&A that led to the current entity being the holder of a resource.

[Exhaustive list of circumstances where 2.6 applies]

>Making such a list would be a very bad idea. It will provide
>opportunities to be abused ("but according to this list I ...") and it
>will exclude cases that we haven't thought of. The policy should set
>the framework for the NCC to be able to deal with these cases.

+1 

It may well be the case that this list would have as many entries as
there are legacy holders. This would be pretty pointless. Every such
case must be decided on its own merits and, most importantly, there MUST
be an appeals process, possibly via the arbitration procedure.


>> 	It will be useful to have a list of the Registration Services
>> 	for which a contract is required.
>
>Make that a maintained and published list.

+1


rgds,
Sascha Luck